Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > Criminal Law > Flashcards

Criminal Law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

R v Woolmington

A

D showed gun to wife, it went off and killed her - proof beyond reasonable doubt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Hill v Baxter

A

Act must be voluntary action - D ignored stop sign and crashed but claimed he was in automation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

State of affairs

A

Offences where D is found in this particular circumstances, irrelevant of how they got there.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

State of affairs case

A

Winzar v CC Kent
Police put drunk man out of hospital into their vehicle and arrested him one on the road for being drunk on the highway

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Exceptions of Positive Action Principle

A

Omissions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Omission by Contractual Duty

A

R v Adomako
Anaesthetist failed to notice or check faulty breathing tube

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Omission by virtue of relationship

A

R v Gibbins and Proctor
Parents failed to feed child who died of starvation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Omission by Voluntarily taking care of another

A

R v Evans
Teen heroin addict overdosed on heroin provided by half-sister and died after mum and sister failed to get help

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Omission by duty from holding a public office

A

R v Dytham
D was policeman and failed to intervene in violent attack

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Omission by duty from Ds conduct

A

R v Miller
D (squatter) started fire from cigarette in empty home and didn’t attempt to help

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

‘But for’ test

A

R v Pagett
D used girlfriend as human shield against policeman. She was shot and died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Novus Actus Interveniens -
Third party intervention

A

R v Smith
Soldier stabbed another in lung, who was given incorrect treatment and died. Stab was overwhelming cause of death so original stabbed was guilty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Novia Actus Interveniens -
Act of Victim

A

R v Roberts
Girl jumped from car to escape sexual advances and was injured from jump.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Novus Actus Interveniens -
Natural but predictable act

A

R v Blaue
Woman stabbed and declined blood transfusion for religious reasons (thin skull rule)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Direct intent

A

Obvious purpose
R v Mohan
D drives at policeman intending to scare/ injure him

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Oblique/ indirect intent

A

Virtual certainty
R v Woolin
D throws baby against wall who dies - the death was a virtual certainty of his actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Recklessness

A

R v Cunningham
D takes gas meter off wall to steal money inside. Gas leak injures neighbours.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Oblique/ indirect intent test

A
  1. Was the outcome a virtual certainty of Ds actions?
  2. Did D realise this?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Subjective recklessness test

A
  1. Was D aware of the risk?
  2. Did D take the risk anyway?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Transferred Malice

A

Same offence to different victim
R v Mitchell
D pushes old man who fell onto and injured old woman

21
Q

Strict liability offences

A

Minor (no fault) offences which don’t require mens rea
Harrow v Shah and Shah
Ds owned newsagents and staff sold lottery tickets to under 16 year old despite being told not to repeatedly

22
Q

How are Strict liability offences established?

A
  1. Judge starts with presumption that mens rea is required
  2. If act is not clear, judge looks for words to indicate mens rea
  3. Sweet v parsley principle means even if there are no words, judge presumes mens rea anyways
23
Q

Strict liability principle

A

Sweet v Parsley
- even if there are no words in the act to indicate mens rea, judge will presume it is required for the offence

24
Q

Reasons for strict liability offences

A
  1. save legal system time and money (lengthy prosecutions aren’t required)
  2. To deter potential offenders - they will be convicted despite circumstances
  3. Place onus on individuals to be responsible for their actions
25
Q

Contemporaneity principle

A

Actus reus and men’s rea must both be present at the same time (coincidence)

26
Q

Exception of contemporaneity 1

A

Continuing Act principle -
D commits AR without realising but continues after MR is formed
Fagan v met police
D drove into police foot and refused to get off

27
Q

Exception of contemporainety 2

A

Single Transaction Principle
MR is well before AR
R v Church - D knocks partner out and throws body in river. She drowned and was alive when thrown into river

28
Q

Assault definition

A

An act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force.

29
Q

‘An act’

A

Omission will not suffice (Fagan)

30
Q

Logdon v DPP

A

D points replica gun at V which caused V to apprehend immediate threat of violence

31
Q

Constanza

A

D wrote hundreds of threat letters to V
- written words can be assault

32
Q

R v Ireland

A

D made silent phone calls which caused psychological harm to 3 women

33
Q

R v Lamb

A

D points gun at someone which they both believed to be unloaded - no apprehension

34
Q

Smith v CS Woking

A

V saw D looking through window at night and apprehended immediate violence

35
Q

Tuberville v Savage

A

Words can negate an assault
(Conditional threat)

36
Q

Intent or Reckless case

A

R v Venna
Assault can be if D lashes/ kicks out (is reckless)

37
Q

R v Donovan

A

Harm must be more than transient and trifling to be ABH

38
Q

R v Chan Fook

A

ABH can include psychiatric harm

39
Q

Collins v Wilcock

A

Everyday jostling will not suffice as battery

40
Q

R v Thomas

A

Touching clothes can amount to battery

41
Q

R v Bollom

A

Age of V is important in determining if injuries are grevious

42
Q

R v Dica/ R v Golding

A

Transmitting STDs can be GBH

43
Q

R v Morrison

A

Resisting arrest can amount to s.18 GBH

44
Q

Proposed definition for assault

A

A person intentionally or recklessly causes another to think that any force or impact is or may be imminent, and the other doesn’t consent

45
Q

S.47 ABH reasons for reform

A
  • out of date (no mental element or STD knowledge)
  • inconsistent (same max sentence for s.20 despite different outcomes)
  • wording (maliciously suggests ill-will to V)
46
Q

S.20 GBH reasons for reform

A
  • out of date (no mental reference)
  • max sentence is same as s.47
  • s.20 says inflict, s.18 says cause
47
Q

Proposed definition for s.20 GBH

A

Recklessly causing serious injury (with max sentence of 7 years)

48
Q

S.18 GBH proposed definition

A

Intentionally causing serious injury (with max sentence of life)

Law (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions